JUNE 2013 Study Group / Study Partner Thread Forum

[jmjm]

Is drilling different than doing PTs untimed?

I am new to this terminology and unclear with the meaning of term "drilling" for lsat. It has been commonly posted here as an important part of prep. I mostly do timed PTs but sometimes do a few untimed questions separately.
Does drilling mean something else?

[wtrc]

Is drilling different than doing PTs untimed?

I am new to this terminology and unclear with the meaning of term "drilling" for lsat. It has been commonly posted here as an important part of prep. I mostly do timed PTs but sometimes do a few untimed questions separately.
Does drilling mean something else?

Yeah. Most people here generally take recent PTs- from PT 40 and onward. For the others- so the first 39, you can buy packets from Cambridge Online (sorry, can't link cause typing on phone now) that are grouped by type. Use those to "drill." As an example for LR, one type is strengthen questions, another is parallel reasoning. For LG, types are based on the game (basic linear, grouping, etc.). RC technically gets grouped by type based on the passage focus, but the emphasis on drilling for RC, IMO, is just full RC sections.

[jad0re]

Why is it so difficult to concentrate on studying?
I swear I was hitting up PT's like hell a week ago.

[phillywc]

PT 52 (Sept 07)

-0
-4
-1
-2

173

I had been using the first book, got the new one in the mail today and decided to jump to the more recent tests do to times. Jumping from only taking early 90s tests to a relatively new test was a bit jarring. I felt like the LR were more "tricky" but altogether easier because I recognized the trickery. Section 1 was actually my first perfect section so that's pretty exciting! Also easily my best total LR at -1, up from -5. However, the first game threw me for a loop for way too long, and I never really recovered and ran out of time. I actually nailed the third and fourth games, but started to rush on the first two and missed questions I normally wouldn't. RC is RC.

[Pneumonia]

PT 49
LG -0
LR -1
RC -2
LR -2
175

Took at my campus library. First LR miss was stupid- missed an EXCEPT in the stem and just picked the first answer like an idiot. The last RC passage was scienc-y and difficult. I went into it with 11 minutes and still got tripped up and missed the last 2 after running out of time. The first 3 passages felt really, really easy; I didn't miss any questions on these. The last one felt orders of magnitude more difficult. Inferences in science passages get me. Tbf a loud study group came and sat next to me during this section and stayed through the last LR. Mistakes in the second LR were silly, and I believe due to the distraction of the study group next to me. Marked TCR off immediately as OOS in both misses, however,both correct AC's brought inferences with them that I didn't even stop to consider because the choices seemed so out of scope.

Takeaway- don't blindly rely on scope distinctions. If an AC seems way to obviously out of scope stop and consider its effect on the question.

This was my first time taking a PT away from the comfort of my desk at home. It ended up being near the top of my PT range, but I do really feel that I lost a few points to distraction. Will take more PT's in more distracting conditions. As an aside: it's not noise necessarily that distracts me- lots of voices drown each other out- instead it's little ticks that people have, like sniffling or wheezing. Must find similar situations and overcome.

[TheRealJoshuaLyman]

Hi everyone,

I have a quick question. I do relatively well on LG, but there is one type of question which usually trips me up. I either spend way too much time trying to answer it or move on and come back if I have extra time. This type of question comes at the end of a game and usually sounds along the line of "Which one of the following, if substituted for for the condition x would have the same effect in determining y?" Basically, figure out which of the answer choices would have the same effect as the rule if you replaced it. How do you all go about answering these? Do you try out each answer choice?

Any help would be appreciated!

[jmjm]

PT 49
This was my first time taking a PT away from the comfort of my desk at home. It ended up being near the top of my PT range, but I do really feel that I lost a few points to distraction. Will take more PT's in more distracting conditions. As an aside: it's not noise necessarily that distracts me- lots of voices drown each other out- instead it's little ticks that people have, like sniffling or wheezing. Must find similar situations and overcome.

excellent score, awesome to see such top scores are possible for some.
The chances of distraction affecting the score also concern me. While PTing at a library a few days ago someone started to use eraser loudly mildly shaking the table or tap on their desk. It lasted 1-2 mins and distracted much more than the time it lasted for. In a real exam, it would be interesting if one can call it out or the proctor quickly does something about such instances.

[Mik Ekim]

Hi everyone,

I have a quick question. I do relatively well on LG, but there is one type of question which usually trips me up. I either spend way too much time trying to answer it or move on and come back if I have extra time. This type of question comes at the end of a game and usually sounds along the line of "Which one of the following, if substituted for for the condition x would have the same effect in determining y?" Basically, figure out which of the answer choices would have the same effect as the rule if you replaced it. How do you all go about answering these? Do you try out each answer choice?

Any help would be appreciated!

Don't you think Josh should have ended up w/that Mary-Louise Parker character instead of Donna?

Anyway, a little over a year ago I spent way too much time putting this together -- http://www.manhattanlsat.com/equivalent-rule.cfm

It could probably be about 80% shorter, but still I hope you find it helpful -- MK

[NoodleyOne]

PT 49
This was my first time taking a PT away from the comfort of my desk at home. It ended up being near the top of my PT range, but I do really feel that I lost a few points to distraction. Will take more PT's in more distracting conditions. As an aside: it's not noise necessarily that distracts me- lots of voices drown each other out- instead it's little ticks that people have, like sniffling or wheezing. Must find similar situations and overcome.

excellent score, awesome to see such top scores are possible for some.
The chances of distraction affecting the score also concern me. While PTing at a library a few days ago someone started to use eraser loudly mildly shaking the table or tap on their desk. It lasted 1-2 mins and distracted much more than the time it lasted for. In a real exam, it would be interesting if one can call it out or the proctor quickly does something about such instances.

What if the people in the hallway are loud? What if your proctor is the one being annoying? You have to get used to distraction. Your focus is one of the things being tested.

[wtrc]

Hi everyone,

I have a quick question. I do relatively well on LG, but there is one type of question which usually trips me up. I either spend way too much time trying to answer it or move on and come back if I have extra time. This type of question comes at the end of a game and usually sounds along the line of "Which one of the following, if substituted for for the condition x would have the same effect in determining y?" Basically, figure out which of the answer choices would have the same effect as the rule if you replaced it. How do you all go about answering these? Do you try out each answer choice?

Any help would be appreciated!

One trick I use that doesn't always solve it but helps:

Use your correct hypotheticals you already have (one of which is probably the first answer for the game).

If the answer choice goes against a hypothetical you know to work, you can eliminate it. This usually gets rid of 2 or 3 answers. If the rule doesn't have the same effect, so goes against your hypo, and every other rule remains the same, it can go.

Example: you know ABCDE works. Rule says that "if substituted for the rule that E must come after C, what would have the same effect?"

A. B must come fourth

Can be eliminated.

This is particularly helpful if you are out of time, last question of section. Suddenly you are down to 2 answers instead of 5.

[waterdragoon]

With 6 weeks to go, is improving from 164 to 170+ a genuine possibility?

I just finished PT 46, with results:

RC: -5
LR1: -6
LR2: -5
LG: -0

I consistently go -0 on LG and RC is my weakest subject ( generally -4 to -7).

So my questions are: whether 170 is a genuine possibility and how best to proceed?

Thank you so much in advance, TLSers!

[nyjets2090]

Had a rough round of studying and pting yesterday, decided to take the day drinking and watching the Mets blow it. Good call, have to go into this last month fresh.

[nyjets2090]

With 6 weeks to go, is improving from 164 to 170+ a genuine possibility?

I just finished PT 46, with results:

RC: -5
LR1: -6
LR2: -5
LG: -0

I consistently go -0 on LG and RC is my weakest subject ( generally -4 to -7).

So my questions are: whether 170 is a genuine possibility and how best to proceed?

Thank you so much in advance, TLSers!

Possibility? Definitely.

Analyze your tests for trends. At this point (1 month before), everything should be on the clock too. Even if you want to make it long (8 minutes for 4 LR questions while drilling) you have to get used to working with a time constriction. Awesome job on the LG, try to approach RC more like LR, where one word might throw the entire answer off (pay attention to the small words, but, however, so, traditionally [OK, so that last one's a five dollar word.]).

I'm stronger on both those sections, but weaker on LGs. I'd be happy to compare notes on any PTs.

[TheRealJoshuaLyman]

Thanks for the help, all!

[SteelPenguin]

If I'm still not -0 LG at this point, would it be worth it at this point to pick up the Manhattan LG book if I've gone through the powerscore book?

[dubster101]

Took three PTs this past week. Results as follows:

PT 20:
LR1 -2
RC -3
LG -0
LR2 -2

Raw: 94, Scaled: 175

PT35:
LR1 -0
RC -4
LG -2
LR2 -0

Raw: 95, Scaled: 176

PT36:
LR1 -2
RC -1
LR2 -4
LG -0

Raw: 94, Scaled: 174

Feeling pretty good as I'm starting to score within my desired range and still have a bunch of prep/PTs left to go. Most of the mistakes were dumb (i.e. misreading tiny words that give away the correct answer). Still a bit inconsistent on RC, but getting better.

[sl5uw13]

It's so easy to go over preptests when I don't fuck em up.

PT 53 (Dec 07)
LR1: -1
LG: -0
LR2: 0
RC: -1

Dat 180.

Come at me June.

[snapdragon25]

It's so easy to go over preptests when I don't fuck em up.

PT 53 (Dec 07)
LR1: -1
LG: -0
LR2: 0
RC: -1

Dat 180.

Come at me June.

Congrats!!

[wtrc]

It's so easy to go over preptests when I don't fuck em up.

PT 53 (Dec 07)
LR1: -1
LG: -0
LR2: 0
RC: -1

Dat 180.

Come at me June.

Awesome job- must feel great!

[sl5uw13]

Thanks guys It does feel good. my last five are
PT 44: 177
PT 51: 178
SuperPrep A: 180
SuperPrep B: 178
PT 53: 180

so maybe, I really do know the LSAT now. I'm just afraid I'll do something stupid in June. but at least there's a month left to really iron out weaknesses

[patfeeney]

Preptext X
LG Sec 2.

Just to make sure, if anyone's done this section, it's just an unusual pain, right? I got -6 on this section, my worst score in weeks, but the games were just completely crackpot.
Anyone else think this section is just too difficult to work with? After working with the higher preptests for so long it's near impossible for me to perfect these older games.

[jmjm]

Yeah. Most people here generally take recent PTs- from PT 40 and onward. For the others- so the first 39, you can buy packets from Cambridge Online (sorry, can't link cause typing on phone now) that are grouped by type. Use those to "drill." As an example for LR, one type is strengthen questions, another is parallel reasoning. For LG, types are based on the game (basic linear, grouping, etc.). RC technically gets grouped by type based on the passage focus, but the emphasis on drilling for RC, IMO, is just full RC sections.

thanks wtrcoins..
would the above "drilling" of concentrating on groups of questions individually have a different effect than doing all questions mixed together in PTs? after all, they both eventually cover all groups of questions.

[wtrc]

Yeah. Most people here generally take recent PTs- from PT 40 and onward. For the others- so the first 39, you can buy packets from Cambridge Online (sorry, can't link cause typing on phone now) that are grouped by type. Use those to "drill." As an example for LR, one type is strengthen questions, another is parallel reasoning. For LG, types are based on the game (basic linear, grouping, etc.). RC technically gets grouped by type based on the passage focus, but the emphasis on drilling for RC, IMO, is just full RC sections.

thanks wtrcoins..
would the above "drilling" of concentrating on groups of questions individually have a different effect than doing all questions mixed together in PTs? after all, they both eventually cover all groups of questions.

They do both eventually cover all questions.

Still, though, drilling works best for me and I think most people here. Once you do 100 MSS questions, for example, you really start to get the hang of how to approach that kind of problem. It's repetitive, but it works, probably better than just mixing old PT's up. You can also more easily identify areas where you have problems- for example, if you get several strengthen questions wrong, keep drilling that; if parallel is all right, no need to do that much more. Hope this makes sense.... I'm no expert right now, still get a couple wrong on each PT.

[homie1515]

how do y'all review RC? after taking a PT i will type up a word document addressing all of my wrong LR, and I will redo all the LG that gave me problems (if there are any), but i do not know what to do about RC, any methods you guys have for reviewing RC?

thannks

[nyjets2090]

PT 45 today
LR1: -7
"Experimental" (LG Section from Dec 06)
RC: - 3
LG: -1
LR2: -1

170.

Should be a 171, forgot to write down an answer on the answer sheet, but I don't give myself favors when grading.

Take aways:
Had a rough time getting going for LR (took the day off yesterday to regroup), made stupid mistakes and misread answer choices. After finishing half the test I regrouped, and told myself I could rally by hitting every question on the next half, it worked.

Also, when stuck between two really good answer choices...there will be one word that throws one choice completely off. Generally it's a misplaced "all" or "always." And necessary assumptions are often (see what I'm doing here) weak.

Don't let one bad section, or even a bad half, kill you for the rest of the test, you can botch a section and still walk away in the 170s...though I certainly recommend and think it's much easier to just nail it from the get go.